X

Create an account to continue reading.

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles
For unlimited access to The Spectator, subscribe below

Registered readers have access to our blogs and a limited number of magazine articles

Sign in to continue

Already have an account?

What's my subscriber number?

Subscribe now from £1 a week

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
 
View subscription offers

Already a subscriber?

or

Subscribe now for unlimited access

ALL FROM JUST £1 A WEEK

View subscription offers

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Login

Don't have an account? Sign up
X

Subscription expired

Your subscription has expired. Please go to My Account to renew it or view subscription offers.

X

Forgot Password

Please check your email

If the email address you entered is associated with a web account on our system, you will receive an email from us with instructions for resetting your password.

If you don't receive this email, please check your junk mail folder.

X

It's time to subscribe.

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access – from just £1 a week

You've read all your free Spectator magazine articles for this month.

Subscribe now for unlimited access

Online

Unlimited access to The Spectator including the full archive from 1828

Print

Weekly delivery of the magazine

App

Phone & tablet edition of the magazine

Spectator Club

Subscriber-only offers, events and discounts
X

Sign up

What's my subscriber number? Already have an account?

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

Thank you for creating an account – Your subscriber number was not recognised though. To link your subscription visit the My Account page

Thank you for creating your account – To update your details click here to manage your account

X

Your subscriber number is the 8 digit number printed above your name on the address sheet sent with your magazine each week. If you receive it, you’ll also find your subscriber number at the top of our weekly highlights email.

Entering your subscriber number will enable full access to all magazine articles on the site.

If you cannot find your subscriber number then please contact us on customerhelp@subscriptions.spectator.co.uk or call 0330 333 0050. If you’ve only just subscribed, you may not yet have been issued with a subscriber number. In this case you can use the temporary web ID number, included in your email order confirmation.

You can create an account in the meantime and link your subscription at a later time. Simply visit the My Account page, enter your subscriber number in the relevant field and click 'submit changes'.

If you have any difficulties creating an account or logging in please take a look at our FAQs page.

Blogs

Hillary Clinton 2016? If she wants it, then yes. - Spectator Blogs

17 January 2013

5:18 PM

17 January 2013

5:18 PM

Yes, yes, yes, speculating about the 2016 Presidential election before Barack Obama has even begun his second term is a silly business. But so what? Silly things can be fun things.

So Jonathan Bernstein attempts to answer a good question: if Hillary runs, would she knock most of her erstwhile rivals out of the race before the contest even reaches Iowa?

His answer is sensible: maybe. But I think I’d be a little more certain than that and rate it probably.

In 2000, after all, Bill Bradley was the only candidate to challenge Al Gore’s inheritance and Bradley’s campaign never looked like prevailing. Now Hillary isn’t quite as obviously “next in line” as Gore was but, for a large part of the Democratic base, the difference between 2000 and 2016 is, in this respect, close to insignificant.

[Alt-Text]


There will, I suspect, be a feeling that, now that the United States has elected its first minority President it is time – beyond time – it selected its first female Commander-in-Chief. For many Democrats that was a powerful argument in 2008; it will be even more potent in 2016. And, if this proves the case, it will be difficult for any male candidate to defeat Hillary. History and all that jazz will be on her side. (She’ll enjoy the benefit of not being part of Obama’s second-term too.)

So difficult, in fact, that some potential challengers may well choose to sit this one out.

That said, there are difficulties. Hillary will be 67 in 2016. Not ancient but she’d be the republic’s third oldest President (after Reagan and William Henry Harrison). Then there’s the present Vice-President. Joe Biden will be 73 at the next election but it’s not impossible to suppose he will think he retains enough vim and pep to have a third crack at the top job. (Republicans should hope he hopes so: running against Biden makes their “time for a change” message an easier sell). Of course, a Biden candidacy would dampen any quiet concerns folk felt about Hillary’s age.

And the biggest question of all: will she want to run? Perhaps not but if she does she’s immediately going to be considered the front-runner and will start the race at such short odds that some of the younger putative candidates – Andrew Cuomo, Martin O’Malley and so on – may be persuaded there’s little chance of defeating Hillary and, thus, little point in running.

After all, it took an exceptional set of circumstances – and an exceptional candidate – to deny Hillary in 2008. If she wants to run, how likely (at this stage!) is it that comparable circumstances will arise to thwart her in four years time?

Of course, early front-runners don’t always prevail (Hart 88!, Clinton 08!) but, assuming she runs, I’d rate Hillary’s chances  of knocking much of the competition out before the first votes are cast a little higher than just maybe.

Give something clever this Christmas – a year’s subscription to The Spectator for just £75. And we’ll give you a free bottle of champagne. Click here.


Show comments
Close